Concurrent Findings of Fact Establishing Title and Possession Preclude Interference Under Section 100 CPC

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding 1400 sq. ft. of land in Khasra Nos. 828/1 and 830/1, Raipur, purchased via sale deed dated 13.04.2007

The plaintiff alleged that while constructing a boundary wall on 29.09.2008, the defendants obstructed the work and claimed ownership without providing documentation

The defendants denied the claims, asserting that the land was originally owned by one Gangaram and sold to different parties in 1968 and 1970

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, a decision upheld by the First Appellate Court

The defendants subsequently filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC

1. Whether the findings of the lower courts regarding the plaintiff's title and possession were perverse or contrary to the evidence on record

2. Whether the lack of a court-ordered demarcation by a Commissioner constituted a reversible error of law

3. Whether the appeal involves any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the CPC

Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which limits the jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals to "substantial questions of law"

The principle that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence

Russi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavna Seth Ors. (2026) to emphasize that erroneous findings of fact do not justify interference in a second appeal

State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019), holding that findings are only bad in law if recorded de hors the pleadings or by misreading material evidence

The Court observed that the plaintiff successfully proved title and possession through Exhibit P/2 (Sale Deed), property tax receipts (Ex. P/3–P/5), and building permits from the Municipal Corporation (Ex. P/10–P/12)

Conversely, the defendants failed to produce any documentary evidence of their own title and their reliance on 1968/1970 sale deeds was misplaced as those documents did not pertain to the specific suit land

Regarding the demand for demarcation, the Court noted that the defendants never prayed for it during the original trial, and both lower courts found the title sufficiently proved by evidence

The High Court reasoned that the appellants were merely seeking a re-appreciation of evidence, which does not constitute a "substantial question of law"

The Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts—establishing the plaintiff as the rightful owner in possession—were based on cogent evidence and were not perverse

The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court and Trial Court were maintained